Several, some systems still have not gone public, neither the development has been commenced. We will hear by time. If not the development, integration is another long route.Are there still missing subsystems for TF-2000?
Several, some systems still have not gone public, neither the development has been commenced. We will hear by time. If not the development, integration is another long route.Are there still missing subsystems for TF-2000?
2 x profiler (CTD)
2/6
He doesn't imply this, i guarantee it.At that moment 3 submarines are being constructed ?
Interesting features, ROVs - AUVs of this class are usually made modular, such that, any module is integrated or replaced to suit the mission profile (scientific, commercial, military). My opinion; Aselsan shouldn't have been making this, unless they have a bigger plan.2 x profiler (CTD)
Side scan sonar (one on each side)
DVL (thus DVL aided INS)
Bathymetry to track the bottom
Acoustic pinger (likely for communication with mothership) on top
Nose E/O
Sail sensor - Wireless modem for data transfer and likely + LIDAR in front.
Dimensions;
Length 4.7 meter
Diameter 0.3 meter
Max Speed 6 knots
Endurance 5-9 hours varying by mission profile @3 knots
Maximum depth 500 to 1000 meters, may as well go up to 1500 but not expecting 2000/3000+ meters.
Hard to label this as a defense-related product. Navies use this kind of vehicles (as well as many other scientific equipment) to aid the missions (MCM, ASW, S&R). And we can safely assume most of the above-related products will be foreign (except two sensors, possibly) and these are COTS, can be purchased through multiple channels but the companies are imposing a strict investigation before supplying the products.
1 - OPV was meant to be smaller, about 1700 tons in first sketches, later 1900 and both were aimed to be a derivation of Ada-class in CODAD configuration. Later, Navy opted for a larger design, keeping changes minimal between Ada-Class and picking a propulsion suite that requires minimal modification on what Ada had. (There are also some political - bureucratic reasons for that, not going there). But design seems to be sufficient to be an OPV for the seas Navy intending to operate it.Dear @Anmdt and also other forum members ;
I want to ask some question about Hisar OPVs and Ada class corvettes. If u kindly answer them, I would be grateful.
1) Why TN choose Hisar OPV size/copy same as Ada class, instead of İstif class ? Our opvs built ready to fit for future application if needed. For me, to upgrade İstif hulls have more spaces and more agile for this purpose.
2) First Ada, Heybeliada laid down at 2005 (18 years) , commissioned at 2011 (12 years), I dont know which date accepted for a MLU for ship. At near future TN any plan for them? and what kind modifications will be made? (May be they are still too new and modern so not needed in a decade)
3) I know Ada class purpose not this but as a request or wish or necessity we all want Ada Class also have more Air defence capabilities with siper missiles. Instead of integrate limited number siper missile to them (acc to some images 12, if i dont remember wrongly), why TN built istif class hulls and transfer all electronic sensors capabilities of Ada ships to new empty hulls with vertical launching system? After that we can basicly obtain an aged OPV and like İstif class or semi İstif class ships. I think, this is cheaper and faster then making new one. If my memory not betrayed me this kind application made by İsreal Navy before they cannibalize some ships and transfer the new hulls. But i dont know the fate of old hulls.
I find the case ships : class Sa'ar 4 to Sa'ar 4.5 modifications
These are going to be great additions to our naval force. But…
I wonder if Hisar class can endure sea conditions like a frigate.1 - OPV was meant to be smaller, about 1700 tons in first sketches, later 1900 and both were aimed to be a derivation of Ada-class in CODAD configuration. Later, Navy opted for a larger design, keeping changes minimal between Ada-Class and picking a propulsion suite that requires minimal modification on what Ada had. (There are also some political - bureucratic reasons for that, not going there). But design seems to be sufficient to be an OPV for the seas Navy intending to operate it.
I don't think this will be the initial setup we will see with Hisar Class ships. I still haven't seen anything concrete on that. If it is, do correct me. Most of these equipment will be fitted for but not with and they can be refitted later on.Should it be still called an OPV?
Doesn't it started to look a lot like I class? ( with a different mast and a different placement for AShM. )
According to what i read about it, this is a hypothetical config explored for export purposes.@TheInsider
View attachment 55677 Should it be still called an OPV?
Doesn't it started to look a lot like I class? ( with a different mast and a different placement for AShM. )
I am wondering, comparatively if it can be considered on per with I class in tarms of over all capability, or is it somewhat downgraded?